Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 18552

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : November | Volume : 17 | Issue : 11 | Page : DC16 - DC19 Full Version

Clinical and Microbiological Profile of Elizabethkingia meningoseptica Bacteraemia: A Cross-sectional Study from a Tertiary Care Centre in Northern India


Published: November 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/67457.18750
Mousumi Kilikdar, Srinivas Jampala, Sandhya Niranjan, Zainab Rehman, Nirmalya Saha

1. Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Rajshree Medical Research Institute and Hospital, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. Professor, Department of Microbiology, Rajshree Medical Research Institute and Hospital, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India. 3. Junior Resident, Department of Microbiology, Rajshree Medical Research Institute and Hospital, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India. 4. Senior Resident, Department of Microbiology, Rajshree Medical Research Institute and Hospital, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of General Medicine, Rajshree Medical Research Institute and Hospital, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Mousumi Kilikdar,
Doctors Residence, Rajshree Medical Research Institute Campus, Rampur Road, Fatehganj Paschimi, Bareilly-243501, Uttar Pradesh, India.
E-mail: drmousumi7891@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Elizabethkingia meningoseptica (E. meningoseptica) is an emerging pathogen that causes bloodstream infections, especially among immunocompromised or critically ill patients. Due to its multidrug resistance, limited antibiotic treatments are available. Therefore, correct identification with a proper susceptibility report is compulsory to reduce mortality and morbidity caused by this rare pathogen.

Aim: To analyse the clinical features, underlying co-morbidity, outcomes, and antibiotic resistance potential of E. meningoseptica causing bacteraemia.

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Department of Microbiology, Rajshree Medical Research Institute (RMRI), Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India. The study spanned three years from August 2020 to July 2023. All patients with E. meningoseptica bacteraemia were identified from blood culture reports and included in the study. As it was a duration-based study, all consecutive patients identified with E. meningoseptica bacteraemia were enrolled. The total sample size was 43. Blood samples growing gram negative, non fermenting, non motile isolates that were positive for the oxidase reaction were further identified using the Vitek 2 compact system (Biomerieux, France). All relevant data regarding demographic and clinical characteristics, underlying diseases, and antibiotic treatments were collected from the hospital information system. Patient demographics were presented as mean±standard deviation. Clinical characteristics and co-morbid conditions were presented as frequency and percentages.

Results: The majority of patients were elderly males admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The most common underlying co-morbidity was malignancy in 12 (27.9%), and pneumonia in 12 (48.8%) was the major diagnosis among these bacteraemic patients. A total of 10 (23.25%) infections were polymicrobial, with common concomitant pathogens being Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Co-trimoxazole, fluoroquinolones, and Piperacillin/Tazobactam were the most effective antibiotics. Thirty-nine (90.7%) patients recovered completely, while four patients (9.3%) died of complications.

Conclusion: Improper antimicrobial therapy increases resistance and mortality among patients with E. meningoseptica infections. It is imperative that clinicians remain vigilant about this rare pathogen and advise antimicrobial susceptibility testing for appropriate treatment, leading to favourable outcomes.

Keywords

Co-morbidity, Immunocompromised, Multidrug resistance

Elizabethkingia meningoseptica, a Gram negative, non fermenting, and oxidase-positive bacillus, is an emerging pathogen causing bloodstream infections, especially among immunocompromised or critically ill patients (1). It is a non fastidious, non spore-forming, slender, slightly curved, and non motile bacillus that is indole-positive (2). Formerly known as Flavobacterium meningoseptica, it is widely recognised to cause meningitis in premature newborns and infants (3),(4). However, pneumonia, endocarditis, cellulitis, wound infections, ocular infections, sinusitis, epididymitis, and prosthesis-associated septic arthritis have also been reported (5). Some of the known risk factors for acquiring such infections are immunosuppression, underlying co-morbidity, prolonged hospital stay, and the presence of invasive devices (6). It is a multidrug-resistant bacterium as it produces two types of beta-lactamases: Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBL) and Metallo-Beta-Lactamases (MBL) (7). Hence, it exhibits resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics and carbapenems. It also shows resistance to aminoglycosides, tetracycline, and chloramphenicol, which usually provide Gram negative coverage. However, it shows susceptibility to clindamycin, erythromycin, cotrimoxazole, and quinolones, which are commonly used to treat infections due to Gram positive bacteria (8). This leads to improper selection of antimicrobials by clinicians, contributing to poor outcomes. Hence, correct identification with a proper susceptibility report is compulsory to reduce mortality and morbidity due to E. meningoseptica infections.

As limited information is found in the literature about this rare pathogen, the present study aims to enlighten clinicians about underlying co-morbidity, proper antibiotic therapy, and the prevention of these emerging human pathogens. It was also noted that E. meningoseptica bacteraemia was a nosocomial infection among elderly males admitted to the ICU and was found to be a multidrug-resistant pathogen.

In this study, all patients with E. meningoseptica bacteraemia admitted to RMRI hospital were prospectively analysed over a three-year period with the aim of analysing the clinical features, underlying co-morbidity, outcomes, and evaluating antibiotic resistance potential among these isolates.

Material and Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in Department of Microbiology, Rajshree Medical Research Institute (RMRI), a tertiary healthcare centre located in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India. The hospital has a capacity of 1080 beds. The study was carried out over a period of three years, from August 2020 to July 2023. Approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC) (Reference number: RMRI/IEC/58/2020) prior to conducting the study.

Inclusion criteria: All patients admitted to the hospital with E. meningoseptica bacteraemia were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients who had received previous antibiotic treatment were excluded from the study.

Sample size and justification: Since this was a duration-based study, all consecutive patients identified with E. meningoseptica bacteraemia during the study period were enrolled. The total sample size was 43.

Study tools: Relevant data regarding demographic and clinical characteristics, underlying co-morbid conditions, antibiotic treatment before and after blood culture results, and outcomes were collected from the hospital information system. Standard definitions were used to categorise community or healthcare-associated bacteraemia (9).

Definitions (9): An episode of significant bacteraemia was defined as the presence of one or more blood cultures that were positive for E. meningoseptica and contributed to clinical sepsis. Nosocomial bacteraemia was defined as bacteraemia that developed atleast 48 hours after hospital admission, according to the standard definition proposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Lab procedures: Sets of blood samples were collected before starting antibiotic therapy and cultured conventionally on blood agar, chocolate agar, and MacConkey agar. Both blood and chocolate agar demonstrated the growth of Gram negative bacilli that produced light yellow-coloured colonies measuring 1-2 mm in diameter. MacConkey agar showed no growth. The organism was non motile in the hanging drop preparation from the colonies. They were positive for oxidase and catalase tests. All isolates were subjected to the Vitek 2 compact system (Biomerieux, France) for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. E. meningoseptica was confirmed when the probability given by Vitek was >99%. As standard guidelines regarding breakpoints for this emerging pathogen are not available, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) criteria for Gram negative and Gram positive bacteria were used to determine antimicrobial sensitivity (10). The Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) values were determined for the following antibiotics: amikacin, gentamicin, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone, colistin, cefepime, imipenem, levofloxacin, meropenem, piperacillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, cefoperazone/sulbactam, cotrimoxazole, tetracycline, tigecycline, ticarcillin, tobramycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, aztreonam, and minocycline using the broth microdilution method with the Vitek 2 compact system. The disk diffusion test was not performed in the present study as it is not recommended by the CLSI guidelines (10). Interpretative criteria for these antibiotics were derived from those described in the CLSI M100 guidelines (10). In patients with E. meningoseptica bacteraemia, repeat blood cultures were performed to rule out contamination, and all of them were found to be positive again with the same organism.

Statistical Analysis

Patient demographics were presented as mean±standard deviation. Clinical characteristics and co-morbid conditions were presented as frequencies and percentages.

Results

The demographic and clinical characteristics of the 43 infected patients are depicted in [Table/Fig-1,2].

Demographic findings: The mean±SD age of the patients was 66.65±13.44 years, with a range of 25-88 years. Among the 43 patients infected with E. meningoseptica, 67.4% (29/43) were male.

Clinical findings: Among the infected patients, 67.4% (29/43) had nosocomial infections, with the majority of these infections acquired in the ICU. The most common underlying co-morbidity aureuswas malignancy 12 (27.9%), followed by diabetes 10 (23.3%). Pneumonia 21 (48.8%) and cellulitis 7 (16.3%) were the major diagnosis among these bacteraemic patients. The majority 31 (72%) received appropriate treatment after obtaining the culture report. Four patients (9.3%) had a fatal outcome due to cardiopulmonary diseases.

(Table/Fig 3) reveals the trend in E. meningoseptica bacteraemia over a three-year period. There was a significant increasing trend in the prevalence rate of E. meningoseptica bacteraemia, from 7% in August 2020 to 21% in January 2022 and then again from 18.6% in August 2022 to 28% in February 2023.

Microbiological findings: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=6, 13.9%) and MRSA (n=3, 6.9%) followed by Acinetobacter spp. (n=1, 2.3%) were the predominant concomitant pathogens grown in blood cultures along with E. meningoseptica.

The antibiotic resistance patterns of E. meningoseptica isolates from blood samples against different antibiotics are shown in (Table/Fig 4). Complete resistance was observed against amikacin, aztreonam, ceftazidime, colistin, imipenem, meropenem, piperacillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, tetracycline, ticarcillin, and tobramycin, with all isolates (n=43, 100%) showing resistance. Resistance to cefepime was observed in 42 (97.7%) isolates, while resistance to gentamicin was observed in 38 (88.4%) isolates, and resistance to minocycline was observed in 36 (83.7%) isolates. The major effective antibiotic showing more than 90.7% (n=39) sensitivity was co-trimoxazole.

Sensitivity rates ranging between 79% to 81% were seen for fluoroquinolones and piperacillin/tazobactam.

Discussion

E. meningoseptica is widespread in nature, and the first outbreak of neonatal meningitis due to this organism was described in 1958 (11). Since then, several outbreaks of sepsis, pneumonia, and wound infections have been reported (12). A literature search reveals that the majority of infections are healthcare-associated and reported in immunocompromised patients (13), which was consistent with the present study. Environmental studies on E. meningoseptica have shown that this organism can exist in chlorinated municipal water supplies, thus colonising sinks, basins, and taps. This explains the potential for this organism to serve as a reservoir of infection in the hospital environment (5). E. meningoseptica infections have also been documented in immunocompetent individuals in the form of sepsis (8),(13).

The present study recorded a male preponderance, and the mean age of the patients was 66.65 years, which has also been reported by Lin PY et al., and Chiu CH et al., (8),(14). It is well-documented that this rare pathogen has a strong predilection for extremes of age.

It was found that the majority of patients (67.4%) acquired E. meningoseptica bacteraemia in the ICU, which is also reported by Hsu MS et al., (15). These patients were subjected to numerous modes of invasive monitoring and support, which may have predisposed them to healthcare-associated infections. The most common underlying co-morbidity noted was malignancy 12 (27.9%), followed by diabetes 10 (23.3%) among the bacteraemic patients, which was consistent with the study by Hsu MS et al., where the frequency of malignancy was 35.6% and diabetes was 25.4% (15). However, Hung PP et al., reported cardiopulmonary disease (14/32, 43%) as the most common underlying disease (7). Thus, the present study highlights the clinical significance of this emerging pathogen as a cause of bacteraemia, especially among immunocompromised patients.

This study reported pneumonia 12 (48.8%) as the predominant infectious diagnosis, followed by cellulitis 7 (16.3%). This was in line with the findings of Hung PP et al., who reported pneumonia in 18/32 (56.2%) cases and cellulitis in 6/32 (18.7%) cases (7). Moore LS et al., also reported a high frequency of isolation of E. meningoseptica from hospital-acquired pneumonia cases (16). In contrast, Hsu MS et al., reported primary bacteraemia in 78% of patients and pneumonia in 9% of patients (15).

Studies like Hsu MS et al., and Aldoghaim FS et al., reported polymicrobial bacteraemia in 38% and 25% of cases, respectively, which was consistent with the present study (15),(17). However, in the present study, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13.9%) and MRSA (6.9%) followed by Acinetobacter spp. (2.3%) were the predominant concomitant pathogens grown, which does not correlate with Aldoghaim FS et al., who reported Serratia marcescens and Enterococcus faecalis as the predominant pathogens (17). This indicates variation in the distribution of concomitant pathogens and suggests a need for changes in treatment patterns accordingly.

All the isolates showed 100% resistance to amikacin, aztreonam, ceftazidime, colistin, imipenem, meropenem, piperacillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, tetracycline, ticarcillin, and tobramycin, which was consistent with previous studies [5,7]. The most active antibiotics in the present study, with sensitivity rates of over 90%, were co-trimoxazole, followed by fluoroquinolones and piperacillin/tazobactam, which was similar to the findings of a previous study (18). Waleed MS et al., reported rifampicin, along with fluoroquinolones and minocycline, to be the most effective drugs against this pathogen (19). The mechanism of drug resistance in this pathogen is attributed to the production of ESBL and MBL (5). Two types of MBL, namely BlaB and GOB, have been described in E. meningoseptica isolates, which are responsible for resistance to carbapenems (5). The findings from this study suggest that antibiotic sensitivity testing should be advised for all clinically significant strains, as ineffective empirical therapy may lead to poor outcomes.

The majority of patients 31 (72%) in the present study received appropriate treatment after obtaining the culture report. Appropriate antibiotic treatment was defined as a regimen to which E. meningoseptica was sensitive, if sensitivity results were available. If the sensitivity of the organism to any given antibiotic was unknown, treatment was considered inappropriate (20). This fact correlated with a favourable outcome in the present study. The mortality rate was found to be 9.3%, which was lower than the mortality rates reported by Hsu MS et al., (23%) (15). A study by Govindaswamy A et al., showed a very high mortality rate (75%) among septicaemic critically ill patients due to the unusual resistance pattern of this pathogen, leading to improper antibiotic regimens (18).

The present study reported an increasing trend in E. meningoseptica bacteraemia, which was in accordance with the findings of Hsu MS et al., (15). This increase is attributed to the rising prevalence of co-morbidities and the emergence of drug resistance patterns.

This study provides clinicians with insights into the clinical and microbiological profile of this rare human pathogen, along with its antimicrobial susceptibility pattern, which will help reduce mortality and morbidity in the future.

Limitation(s)

The isolates in the present study were not subjected to molecular methods for confirmation, and the sample size was small.

Conclusion

The current study sheds light on the clinical and microbiological profiles of E. meningoseptica causing bacteraemia, especially among immunocompromised patients. It is an emerging human pathogen that exhibits a significant antimicrobial resistance pattern. Improper antimicrobial therapy increases resistance and mortality rates among patients. It is imperative for clinicians to be vigilant about this rare pathogen, advise antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and treat accordingly to achieve favourable outcomes.

Acknowledgement

Authors thank the technical staff of the Microbiology laboratory for their help in conducting this study.

References

1.
Bloch KC, Nadarajah R, Jacobs R. Chryseobacterium meningosepticum: An emerging pathogen among immunocompromised adults: Report of 6 cases and literature review. Medicine (Baltimore).1997;76(1):30-41. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Winn WC, Allen SD, Janda WM, Koneman EW, Procop GW, Schreekenberger PC, et al. The non-fermentative gram-negative bacilli. In: Koneman’s Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology. 6th ed. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006. Pp. 345-48.
3.
Hoque SN, Graham J, Kaufmann ME, Tabaqchali S. Chryseobacterium (Flavobacterium) meningosepticum outbreak associated with colonization of water taps in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 2001;47(3):188-92. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Thong ML, Puthucheary SD, Lee EL. Flavobacterium meningosepticum infection: An epidemiological study in a newborn nursery. J Clin Pathol. 1981;34(4):429-33. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Ceyhan M, Celik M. Elizabethkingia meningosepticum (Chryseobacterium meningosepticum) infections in children. Int J Pediatr. 2011;215-37. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Bhat SK, Priya R, Krishnan L, Kanungo R. Elizabethkingia meningoseptica bacteremia in a neonate: A case report and mini-review of the literature. J Curr Res Sci Med. 2016;2(1):42. [crossref]
7.
Hung PP, Lin YH, Lin CF, Liu MF, Shi ZY. Chryseobacterium meningosepticum infection: Antibiotic susceptibility and risk factors for mortality. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2008;41(2):137-44.
8.
Lin PY, Chu C, Su LH, Huang CT, Chang WY, Chiu CH. Clinical and microbiological analysis of bloodstream infections caused by Chryseobacterium meningosepticum in nonneonatal patients. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(7):3353-55. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control. 1988;16(3):128-40. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2023. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; Thirty three informational supplement; CLSI M100-Ed33. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
11.
Brody JA, Moore H, King EO. Meningitis caused by an unclassified gram-negative bacterium in newborn infants. AMA J Dis Child. 1958;96(1):01-05. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Burnard D, Gore L, Henderson A, Ranasinghe A, Bergh H, Cottrell K, et al. Comparative genomics and antimicrobial resistance profiling of Elizabethkingia isolates reveal nosocomial transmission and in vitro susceptibility to fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(9):e00730-20. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Ghafur A, Vidyalakshmi PR, Priyadarshini K, Easow JM, Raj R, Raja T. Elizabethkingia meningoseptica bacteremia in immunocompromised hosts: The first case series from India. South Asian J Cancer. 2013;2(4):211-15. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Chiu CH, Waddingdon M, Greenberg D, Schreckenberger PC, Carnahan AM. Atypical Chryseobacterium meningosepticum and meningitis and sepsis in newborns and the immunocompromised, Taiwan. Emerg Infect Dis. 2000;6(5):481-86. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Hsu MS, Liao CH, Huang YT, Liu CY, Yang CJ, Kao KL, et al. Clinical features, antimicrobial susceptibilities, and outcomes of Elizabethkingia meningoseptica (Chryseobacterium meningosepticum) bacteremia at a medical center in Taiwan, 1999-2006. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;30(10):1271-78. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Moore LS, Owens DS, Jepson A, Turton JF, Ashworth S, Donaldson H, et al. Waterborne Elizabethkingia meningoseptica in adult critical care. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(1):09-17. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Aldoghaim FS, Kaabia N, Alyami AM, Alqasim MA, Ahmed MA, Al Aidaroos A, et al. Elizabethkingia meningoseptica (Chryseobacterium meningosepticum) bacteraemia: A series of 12 cases at Prince Sultan Military Medical City KSA. New Microbes New Infect. 2019;32(100617):100617. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Govindaswamy A, Bajpai V, Trikha V, Mittal S, Malhotra R, Mathur P. Multidrug resistant Elizabethkingia meningoseptica bacteremia-Experience from a level 1 trauma centre in India. Intractable Rare Dis Res. 2018;7(3):172-76. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Waleed MS, Amba V, Varughese AA, Pathalapati R. Elizabethkingia meningoseptica bacteremia and meningitis: A case report. Cureus [Internet]. 2021;13(11):e19275. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19275. [crossref]
20.
Lin YT, Chiu CH, Chan YJ, Lin ML, Yu KW, Wang FD, et al. Clinical and microbiological analysis of Elizabethkingia meningoseptica bacteremia in adult patients in Taiwan. Scand J Infect Dis. 2009;41(9):628-34.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/67457.18750

Date of Submission: Sep 09, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Sep 22, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Oct 26, 2023
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2023

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Sep 12, 2023
• Manual Googling: Oct 04, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Oct 23, 2023 (12%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com